4.2 Review

Technology acceptance model: a literature review from 1986 to 2013

期刊

出版社

SPRINGER HEIDELBERG
DOI: 10.1007/s10209-014-0348-1

关键词

Technology acceptance model (TAM); Literature review; Development and extension; Modification and application

资金

  1. Ministry of Science, Education and Sports of the Republic of Croatia
  2. [177-0361994-1998]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

With the ever-increasing development of technology and its integration into users' private and professional life, a decision regarding its acceptance or rejection still remains an open question. A respectable amount of work dealing with the technology acceptance model (TAM), from its first appearance more than a quarter of a century ago, clearly indicates a popularity of the model in the field of technology acceptance. Originated in the psychological theory of reasoned action and theory of planned behavior, TAM has evolved to become a key model in understanding predictors of human behavior toward potential acceptance or rejection of the technology. The main aim of the paper is to provide an up-to-date, well-researched resource of past and current references to TAM-related literature and to identify possible directions for future TAM research. The paper presents a comprehensive concept-centric literature review of the TAM, from 1986 onwards. According to a designed methodology, 85 scientific publications have been selected and classified according to their aim and content into three categories such as (i) TAM literature reviews, (ii) development and extension of TAM, and (iii) modification and application of TAM. Despite a continuous progress in revealing new factors with significant influence on TAM's core variables, there are still many unexplored areas of model potential application that could contribute to its predictive validity. Consequently, four possible future directions for TAM research based on the conducted literature review and analysis are identified and presented.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.2
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据